St. Landry democrat., 1887-11-26
NICHOLS.
Judge E. D. White in the Cam
VaSE,
The Leyee Question
As an Adjunct to the Third Term
Aspirations Of Governor
McEnery.
Extracts from a Speech Delivered at
Oakley, Franklin Parish,
Nov. 16, 1857

Nov. 16, 1887.
Judge White having discussed the thirG
term question and the schools and tinancet
under the administration OF Governor Nc
Emery substantially as already published In
his speech at Rayvilie, approached the els.
cussion OF the levee question and spoke as
follows:
Another claim advanced as q reason why
Governor McEBery should have a third term
ls the levee question. The most eXtrayagenG
assertions have been made in favor or what
his supporters have been pleased to call the
'levee governor" and the policy OF the leVee
governor. Now, tellow-cltizens. | have no
criticism to make upon Governor Me-
Enery's devotion to the levee interest: In
deed, / have no criticism to make on any of
his acts in connection with the levees except
In one particular, which | shall notice here
after. Even In that particular l make no
attack on his motives or the honesty OF his
purpose. l dol however, consider the claims
which have been advanced In his favor as
The levee governor and in favor OF his leyee
policy as extravaganza and unreasonable.
Let us see II this is not susceptible OF
ready demonstration. In the opening OF the
canvass it was pointed out that when Gov
ernor Nichols came into power the leVees
were in the hands Of @ levee company under
a contract having a long period TO run, by
which contract the lege5 company was paid
so cents per cubic yard for every yard OF
levee TO De built. That company had be-
sides a claim against Lhs state for nearly
TWO millions OF dollars which had not only
been audited BY the legislature but sane
toned by a fina decree OF Cne supreme court
of the United States. This contract and
this claim stood when the NICHOLS admins
tration entered into office as "A seemingly in
vinclble barrier between that adut1nlstra-
ZION and eficaclOus legislation for the BEN
eta of the levees. Ii has also besn shown
that i'll the very first session OF the Nichols
legislature this barrier WAS thrown down by
ii wise law by which the levee company was
wiped out OF existence and the claim OF
nearly two millions of dollars against the
state o5llterated, and the state enabled TO
leslslate, as fac as her means extended, for
the protection Of the alluvial lands.
With the way thus cleared. what was
done? LII the first session, That OF 1887. n
BOARD OF engineers was created with author
lty TO expend what remnant there was of
the 3-mili tax which had been imposed for
the levee company and which remained I'M
expended by that company. In the next
session a permanent system was established.
What was that sysrem2 The subdivision Of
rhe state into ievee districts, the creation of
a board of engineers, the imposition OF a
general tay over the whole state represent
Ing the quota OF benefit which the whole
state received from the levee protection,
ana the empowering OF the local boards to
levy In each district such Il tax as wonld be
necessary for the purposes OF the district.
This wise system was the first solution OF
the levee problem developed since the war.
Prior to the war the burden OF building
levees rested in a large measure on the
sums of money were expended by
the state and the courts declared
III the case OF police jury We. Tard0s. report
cd III the Twenty second Annual. that the
expenditure of this large sum OF money by
tbs state had released the riparian proprie-
tdry from the duty OF building their own
leyees. From tne date of that decision the
state had staggered under an awful burden. |
liz 4s- a /
spent, no appreciable results were manifest.
The levee company was created. There
grew up in the state, particularly in the hill
parishes, a feeling that they were being un-
duly burdened for the benefit OF the alluyial |
regions. The legislation OF the Nichols |
legislature was a solution to this difficulty. |
1t ltghtened the burdens resting on the ILL
parishes-it furnished the alluvialr regions |
with the means of protecting themselves |
through the fundamentally OF a district tax.
What has the administration of Governor
McEnery done to improve this situation2
The answer is resdy-nothing, absolutely
nothing. except to add to the law by creating
additional districts. The great fundamental
principle established by the Nichols leglsla-
ture has remained during the whole of Gov
ernor McEnery' g administration. What tnea
Is the levee policy for which we hear so
much acclaim2
But the para lei goes much further. Not
only has the system which Governor Mem
ery's administration carried out been the
same systom put on foot By the Nichols ad-
miBistration. out the rate of taxation has
been the same. With the same legislation
aud the same tax what room is there for
claiming that the leVee policy of Governor
MeEnery's administrator entities him to re-
nomination for a third terml Not only,
however, has the same policy and virtually
the same law and the same amount of gen.
eral tax been carried out during Governor
McEnery's administrator but for
all practical purposes the same
board of engineers has been charged
with the execution OF the law. 1t is true
that there have been some changes in the
board, caused by the promotion OF Major
Harrod VINO was its president or chief en-
gineer under Nichols, and for other
causes. but 1t is also true that the majority
OF Ihe board who have executed the law
under Governor McEnery's administration
were essher appointees OF Governor Mich
oils 90 that board or were connected with
the NICHOLS board as subordinates thereof.
We have, therefore, not only substantially
the same law and the same tax, but we have
for all practical purposes the same board
charged with the execution of the law.
In the outset of this campaign 1T was as
serted In a great journal, in a laudatory ar
ticle on Governor McEnery's levee policy,
that he had begun the work Of leyee build
ing. and therefore that he was entitled to
adulation as the levee governor without
peer. When attention was called to the
Iacts which | have just stated, the preten-
sion was changed. 1t was said, true Gov
erpor McEnery did not begin the work
VI lcSco uuIlh1uRs IL was D5Run under Gov |
Nichols, but Governor Nichols was
inert in the execution of the Ievee law
which his administration had enacted whilst
McEnery has been active and
in the execution Of that law" Why,
sirs, when this argument was advanced what
did 1t ~receiveq A very simple one. Ii
your pretension be true then 10 affords the
very best argument in the world why Gov
ernor McEnery should not enjoy d third
BERN.
Under the levee law the governor is not
with Its execution but the board of
engineers; as the board of engineers under
the McEnery administration has been, for
I'LL practical purposes, with the exceptions
which I have noted, the same board which
Nichols appointed, then your
Slain amounts to this, that Governor Nc
Emery has kept In power a board which was
the administration OF the law. The
seems TO me irresistible. IL the board
charged with the execution Of the law
il did not execute IL, then it was the
plain duty OF the governor TO have removed
LheEn frem office when he came into power.
IL he did not remove them, how then can you
acclaim min as the levee governor u laud
ievee policy2 Why, sirs. an attack on the
Doald Of levee engineers. for this is what the
eiafrl really amounted so, Was ~ u~nf0unded ]
" RaE ungeneE0uss No more faithful pex-
Eeru1arlee of public duty MasseHegd QHo saN4A